Each of us, probably, at least once in his life ordered furniture: someone bought a wardrobe according to an exhibition model, someone ordered according to sketches, someone individual sizes. The purchase, as a rule, was paid immediately in full or in part. But then some buyers began to have problems: then Furniture not delivered on time then brought furniture of the wrong color, size or inconsistent with the sketch, then brought defective furniture, they received a shortage, for example, without facades. Then the following troubles followed: they do not respond to claims, they do not take the brought furniture, they do not return the money. Many people wait half a year for the seller to deign to observe the rights of the consumer. We must not wait, but act.
What to do if furniture is not delivered on time?
Without fail, when prepaying for the goods, a contract is concluded, in which the delivery time of the furniture must be indicated. If the delivery is delayed through no fault of yours, write a claim to the seller. You can install new term or demand a refund, as well as payment of a penalty for the delay.
What to do if you brought furniture of the wrong color or incomplete furniture (missing, facades, fittings, any of the cabinets, etc.)?
Furniture of a different color or incomplete set is a discrepancy with the order you made, i.e. in other words, non-performance of the contract. In this case, you can also talk about a violation of the terms of delivery of a prepaid product or a low-quality service for the manufacture of furniture (it all depends on the type of your contract: for manufacturing or purchase according to a model)
If you find a discrepancy between the furniture and your order immediately upon acceptance, then reflect this in the acceptance certificate.
If you cannot check right away, then you do not need to sign in the act that you have no claims. It happens that cunning sellers slip forms of acceptance and transfer certificates, in which you certify with one signature that you accept and have no complaints. Do this: write with your own hand the phrase: “The goods have been accepted, I will inform you about the presence or absence of claims after installation (assembly, unpacking)” and put a signature next to it.
In case of detection shortcomings (), incompleteness, violations of sketches, discrepancies in color, size, report this to the seller (manufacturer) in a written form.
In such cases, you you can demand a penalty, demand a refund or set a new deadline for the seller.
What penalty can be demanded if the furniture was not delivered on time?
The amount of the penalty is established by the Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights".
If you have a contract for the purchase of furniture, then the penalty is 0.5% of the prepaid amount for each day of delay. At the same time, the amount of the penalty is limited by law and cannot exceed the amount of the advance payment.
If the contract is for the manufacture of furniture according to individual parameters, then this is a service, and a penalty of 3% per day of the price of services. More about
The seller is obliged to pay the penalty on a voluntary basis, but be sure to declare your desire to receive it to the seller in writing.
What is the time period for a refund if the furniture is not delivered, the furniture was delivered in the wrong color and not replaced?
If you decide not to wait, but to return the money and told the seller about it, then he must return the money within 10 days from the date of such a request.
What to do if the furniture is not delivered and the money is not returned?
In this case, don't wait. It is necessary to go to court and recover in court both the cost of furniture, and the penalty, and compensation for moral damage, and a fine for non-fulfillment of consumer requirements on a voluntary basis.
Even if the cost of furniture is 50 thousand rubles, 100 thousand or more can be recovered in court: prepayment for furniture + penalty + compensation for moral damage + fine
______________________________________________________________________________________
We will help you recover your money at a profit for you!
Call: +7-981-746-76-21 .
We will prepare a claim to the seller. Sometimes a well-written claim is enough.
Collect money in court . The costs of our services are charged to the seller.
Like, which he refused.
In which
Decree Arbitration Court of the North Caucasian District of August 18, 2014 N F08-5296 / 14 in the case N A63-8929 / 2013
The Arbitration Court of the North Caucasian District, composed of the presiding Rogalsky C.The., judges Kukhar The.F. and Chesnyak H.The., with participation in the hearing, from the plaintiff - Limited Liability Company "KMV Imperial" (TIN 2630801194, OGRN 1122651006917) - Maltseva Yew.C. (director) and Melnikova G.A. (power of attorney dated 01/09/2014), from the defendant - individual entrepreneur Bondarenko Galina Nikolaevna (TIN 263400239610, OGRN 304263523600292) - Polyankina A.A. and Grunis E.I. (power of attorney dated 03/06/2014), having considered the cassation appeal of an individual entrepreneur Bondarenko G.N. on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory of February 12, 2014 (Judge Yermilova Y.V.) and the decision of the Sixteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal of May 20, 2014 (Judges Godilo N.N., Beytuganov Z.A., Zhukov E.V.) in the case N A63-8929/2013, established the following.
KMV Imperial LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Company) filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory against individual entrepreneur Bondarenko G.N. on the recovery of 800 thousand rubles of advance payment for office furniture, 3850 rubles of interest for the use of other people's in cash and 44,776 rubles 38 kopecks of court costs.
By the decision of February 12, 2014, left unchanged by the decision of the Court of Appeal of May 20, 2014, the debt and interest in the claimed amount, as well as 24,871 rubles 50 kopecks of court costs, were collected from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The courts found that the goods supplied by the entrepreneur had significant irreparable defects, did not correspond to the samples offered to the buyer, which, by virtue of Article 475 of the Civil Code Russian Federation(hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) allows the buyer to refuse to perform the contract.
In the appeal businessman Bondarenko G.N. asks to cancel the judicial acts and dismiss the claim. The Applicant points out that the conclusion of the forensic examination does not contain any conclusions about the unrecoverable nature of the defects found in the goods or the need for disproportionate costs or time spent to eliminate them. The identified defects relate to defects in the assembly made by the plaintiff, are not significant and do not give the buyer the right to demand a refund of the amount paid. Part of the furniture - the negotiating table - no defects were found, therefore, there are no grounds for the return of the entire prepayment. In accordance with the contract concluded by the parties, a slight difference in the shade of furniture from the sample, deviation from overall dimensions within 2 cm is not a marriage. different height chairs due to their different purposes.
Society in response to the cassation appeal asks to leave the judicial acts unchanged.
Having studied the materials of the case, after hearing the representatives of the parties, the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District considers that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal.
According to the contract-order dated 06/03/2013, entrepreneur Bondarenko G.N. (seller) undertook to deliver to the company (buyer) the office furniture specified in the specification at a cost of 800 thousand rubles no later than 45 days from the date of signing the contract. The buyer undertakes to pre-pay 100% of the cost of the goods. Assembly of furniture is carried out at the request of the buyer for a fee. The parties agreed that a slight difference in the shade of the fabric (skin) from the sample, or a slight difference in the color of the decor from the sample is not a marriage; deviation from the overall dimensions within 2 cm. The ownership of the goods passes to the buyer from the moment of full payment of its cost (paragraph 4.3 of the contract). A high-quality product cannot be returned or exchanged, since the transferred furniture has individual properties (colors and configurations) and can only be used by the buyer who purchases it (clause 4.5).
In accordance with the specification, the subject of delivery was: a set of furniture "DAVOS" color "palisander" for the office of the head, including an armchair for the head (leather), 8 chairs for the conference table (leather); set of furniture "DELTA SYSTEM" color "ebony" for the secretary's office.
The Company transferred 800 thousand rubles to the entrepreneur by payment orders dated 06/04/2013 N 872 and 07/03/2013 N 1004.
According to the consignment note dated 08.07.2013 N 57, the seller delivered the goods, however, upon acceptance, it was found that 4 fasteners for twisting were missing desk and a negotiating table, as noted in the consignment note. Acceptance has been rescheduled.
The court found that on July 17, 2013, after the furniture was assembled by the representatives of the defendant, the representatives of the parties jointly examined the delivered and assembled goods, revealing defects in its quality.
These circumstances are reflected in the company's claim dated 07/19/2013, which describes in detail the identified shortcomings (difference in color of the negotiating table and a desk with a pedestal; difference in material inside table (plastic) from the sample (wood); scratches and deformations; the difference between the negotiating table in shape (rectangular) from the sample (oval); different shape of the bend of the armrests, different colour and the size of seats of the same purpose, etc.). The entrepreneur is offered to return the amount of money paid within 5 (five) banking days from the date of receipt of the claim.
In response to a claim dated 07/31/2013, the entrepreneur acknowledged the fact that the furniture was assembled by his employees, the presence of chips and scratches discovered during the continuation of the acceptance of the goods, stipulating that these defects were not present at the time of the initial delivery. The entrepreneur also pointed out that the color "rosewood" allows the difference in shades of products from each other, since when hand made it is impossible to repeat products exactly. different shape armrests of two chairs for a briefing console from the remaining six - for the negotiating table, according to the entrepreneur, agreed with the client when ordering. This is also the reason for the differences in size. The seller pointed out that the shortcomings listed in the claim are not, but, nevertheless, can be eliminated as soon as possible. At the same time, referring to the Law of February 7, 1992 N 2300-1 "On the Protection of Consumer Rights" and the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 19, 1998 N 55 on the list of non-food products of good quality, the businessman refused to return the money, since office furniture return and exchange is not subject to.
According to the conclusion of the forensic examination dated December 23, 2013, the furniture examined by the expert does not correspond to the samples from the catalog (inadmissible defect); upholstery chairs, declared as leather, in reality is both natural and faux leather, and the area of artificial exceeds the area of natural (violation of the requirements of GOST); in the drawer of the cabinet - jamming of the lock (manufacturing defect); a gap in the joints of parts and a skewing of vertical shields (an unacceptable defect); technological holes are not closed with plugs (assembly defect); different color armrests (manufacturing defect). The conclusion also indicates other unacceptable according to GOST and manufacturing defects, as well as other defects (scratches, chips, abrasions), which may be related to transportation shortcomings. At the same time, the expert did not find any visible defects in operation, noting that the examined furniture does not apply to furniture made according to custom order, presented in the catalog "Office Furniture" trademark Pointex.
In accordance with Article 518 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the buyer (recipient), to whom goods of inadequate quality have been delivered, has the right to present to the supplier the requirements provided for in Article 475 of the Code, except for the case when the supplier, having received the buyer's notification of defects in the delivered goods, will immediately replace the delivered goods with goods of proper quality. quality.
In the case under consideration, the seller refused to replace the goods, without explaining in what other way the quality defects could be eliminated as soon as possible (reply to the claim).
Article 476 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the seller is liable for the defects of the goods if the buyer proves that the defects of the goods arose before it was transferred to the buyer or for reasons that arose before that moment.
According to Article 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of a significant violation of the requirements for the quality of goods (detection of irreparable shortcomings, shortcomings that cannot be eliminated without disproportionate costs or time, or are detected repeatedly, or reappear after their elimination, and other similar shortcomings) the buyer has the right, at his choice: to refuse to fulfill the contract of sale and demand the return of the amount of money paid for the goods; demand the replacement of goods of inadequate quality with goods that comply with the contract.
Having assessed the actual circumstances of the case and the results of the examination, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion that the goods supplied by the entrepreneur had significant shortcomings, giving the plaintiff the right to demand the return of the amount of money paid for the goods.
The entrepreneur did not refute the conclusions of the courts. The reference in the cassation appeal to the absence in the expert opinion of a conclusion on whether the identified shortcomings are significant is subject to rejection. The expert rightfully refused to answer the third question put to him - whether the identified defects significant shortcomings, indicating that it legal issue, not related to the competence of the commodity expert, and operated with the concept of "inadmissible defect". The defendant points out that a slight difference in the shades of furniture from the sample is not a defect under the terms of the contract. However, the evidence available in the case confirmed the difference in color of furniture not only from the sample, but also individual elements furniture among themselves, which does not correspond to the terms of the contract and the photographs of the catalog (attached to the case file).
The unacceptable defects listed in the opinion are sufficient to apply the consequences specified in Article 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of the presence of other defects in the furniture that could be eliminated without disproportionate costs or time.
The arguments set forth in the cassation appeal are aimed at reassessing the evidence and factual circumstances, which is not within the powers of the cassation court.
The violations provided for by Article 288 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as grounds for the annulment of judicial acts have not been established.
Guided by articles 284, 286, 287, 289 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District
RESOLVED:
the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory dated February 12, 2014 and the decision of the Sixteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 20, 2014 in case N A63-8929 / 2013 are left unchanged, the cassation appeal is not satisfied.
The decision comes into force from the day of its adoption.
V.F. cook |
1. INITIAL DATA
1.1. A set of furniture for the bedroom - a double bed, a set of cabinets and cabinets, a wall panel. The furniture is made to order on an individual project.
Marking: There is no marking on all parts.
2. USED LITERATURE, SOURCES
GOST 20400-80 "Products furniture production. Terms and Definitions".
GOST 19917-93 “Furniture for sitting and lying. General technical conditions»
GOST 16371-93 “Furniture. General technical conditions".
3. RESEARCH
Organoleptic and measuring methods established:
1) commodity characteristics object;
2) the presence of defects;
3) the nature and causes of defects;
4) by comparing the characteristics of the product under study with the requirements normative documents presented to the quality of furniture, their compliance (non-compliance) with the standards was established.
Of the organoleptic methods, the general method is applied - visual, because. common indicator of all consumer goods is appearance, which is provided by the control methods for all consumer goods.
When conducting research, the expert used standards and methods of control on this species furniture according to GOST 16371-93. The use of this standard is due to paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Federal Law "On Technical Regulation" No. 184-FZ in terms of protecting the life or health of citizens, property of individuals or legal entities, prevention of actions that mislead purchasers.
The study took into account the properties functional purpose furniture (that is, the performance of the main function, which characterizes the degree of satisfaction of the most significant need when using the product for its intended purpose).
Due to the fact that there is no marking in the product, and the information provided in the order does not contain information about technical documentation according to which the furniture was made, the expert examined consumer characteristics in accordance with the requirements of the standard. Reference: consumer properties goods, i.e. those properties that are designed to meet the needs and expectations of consumers.
3.1. The study found:
- the furniture has signs of use - there are minor stains, there are personal items in the cabinets.
- on appearance(component elements) and the materials used in the manufacture, the furniture does not comply with the drawing-scheme to Contract No. MS 1257. Non-compliance with constituent elements determined due to the actual presence at the head of the bed decorative element(Fig. 1), which is absent in the diagram. According to the diagram, two frame facade(Fig. 2).
Inconsistency in the set of materials - the fronts of the cabinet doors are made of MDF, must be chipboard with a frame.
The discrepancy between the actual type of furniture declared under the contract of sale is a violation of the requirements of clause 2.1. GOST 16371-93.
- handles on cabinets installed at the edges of the bed must be identical to the handles drawers pedestals (Fig. 3 and 4). In fact, the handles of the established larger size, which is a violation of the drawing-scheme to Contract No. MS1257. Handles on bed drawers installed smaller than indicated in the diagram to Contract No. MC1257. According to the terms of the Agreement, the handles on the drawers of the bed must be identical to the handles of the wardrobes, and the handles on the cabinets near the bed must be identical to the handles of the drawers of the nightstands. In the process of assembling and assembling a set of furniture, the handles were not installed correctly - they were mixed up.
A violation of the requirements of clause 2.1 was established. GOST 16371-93.
- details of the furniture set have a discrepancy in the color of the fronts of cabinets, drawers of cabinets, drawers of the bed, headboard and wall panels (Fig.5, Fig.6, Fig.7, Fig.8, Fig.9, Fig.10). The difference in color is significant and noticeable to the naked eye. The defect is fatal, critical, production. Probably, this defect was formed as a result of the use of furniture parts produced in different batches. A violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.20 of GOST 16371-93 was established.
Rice. 5
Rice. 6
Rice. 7
Rice. eight
Rice. nine
Rice. ten - the orientation of the decorative recesses of the pattern of the overhead headboard does not correspond in appearance to the orientation of the recesses and the pattern of the facades of the doors of cabinets, cabinets and wall panels. All parts of the headset, with the exception of the headboard, have vertical lines, and the headboard has horizontal lines (Fig. 11). The defect is manufacturing. A violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.20 of GOST 16371-93 was established.
- at the place of the connecting fasteners of the bed, there are multiple chips of the lining and violation of the integrity of the panels to a depth of 4 mm (Fig.12, Fig.13, Fig.14, Fig.15, Fig.16). Violation of the integrity of the panels is ubiquitous, formed as a result of external mechanical impact rendered during assembly. The defect is unrecoverable and invalid. The defect was established in accordance with GOST 20400.
Rice. 12
Rice. thirteen
Rice. fourteen
Rice. fifteen - on the bed panels, at the junction of the parts - the joints of two panels, the joints of the panels and the tsarg, there are chipped lining (Fig. 16, Fig. 17). Probably, the defects were formed as a result of external mechanical impact during the assembly of the elements. The defect is unrecoverable and invalid. The defect was established in accordance with GOST 20400.
- at the junction of the bed parts - the left tsarga and the front back (footboard), there is a violation of the assembly technology (Fig. 18 2 pcs). The defect has the form of overhanging the back on the side by 5 mm. The defect was formed in view of the incorrect fastening of the side to the back - the side is recessed towards the center of the back.
- at the junction of the back of the back bed (headboard) and the wall panel, on the left, there is a 4mm sinking of the panel, and on the right, an overhang of the panel by 3mm (Fig. 19, Fig. 20). The defect is unacceptable; it was formed as a result of a violation of the technology for assembling blanks. The defect was established in accordance with GOST 20400.
- the lower drawer of the nightstand, installed to the left of the bed, does not have free movement. When the drawer is opened, the facade touches side wall bed and drawer front (Fig. 21). The defect was formed as a result of a violation of the assembly technology of parts. Established violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.4. GOST 16371-93. In addition, with the simultaneous opening of all drawers of the nightstand, installed to the left of the bed, there is no unity (Fig. 22). The bottom drawer opens up greater distance compared to the other two. The defect is also a consequence of poor-quality work on the installation of a set of furniture.
Rice. 21
Rice. 22 - between wall panel and back wall open shelf above the cabinet, located to the right of the bed, there is a gap of 4.5 mm (Fig. 23). The defect was formed as a result of a violation of the installation technology.
Rice. 23 - the door of the cabinet, installed to the left of the bed, does not have free movement. When the door is opened, the facade touches the cabinet body. The defect was formed as a result of a violation of the door installation technology. The door is installed skewed - in the lower right corner the cabinet body protrudes beyond the door border by 9mm, and in the left right corner door leaf leans on the body of an adjacent wardrobe (Fig. 24). The defect is established in accordance with GOST 20400 and is an excess of the norms according to clause 2.2.2. GOST 16371-93.
- the door of the wardrobe, installed to the right of the bed, is installed with a bias - in the lower left corner, the cabinet body protrudes 9mm beyond the door, and in the lower right corner, the door leaf rests on the body of the adjacent wardrobe by 2mm (Fig. 25). The defect is established in accordance with GOST 20400 and is an excess of the norms according to clause 2.2.2. GOST 16371-93 and is a consequence of a violation of the installation technology.
- the door of the wardrobe, located to the left of the bed, was installed with a violation of installation - there is a gap of 4 mm between the door and the wardrobe body, i.e. the door does not close (Fig.26). A violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.7 of GOST 16371-93 was established.
Rice. 26 - when opening the upper and middle drawers of the cabinet installed to the left of the bed, the facades touch each other, which is the reason for the lack of free movement of the drawers and the violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.4 of GOST 16371-93 (Fig. 27). When operating a pedestal with a detected defect, premature destruction of the materials used in the manufacture of parts is possible. The defect was formed as a result of poor-quality installation work.
Rice. 27 - the lower drawer of the nightstand to the right of the bed does not have free movement. It takes a lot of effort to open and close the drawer. The reason for the formation of a defect may be a violation of the installation technology, which led to a distortion of the internal elements or as a result of the use of parts that ensure the movement of the box, of poor quality. The absence of free play of the drawer is a violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.4 of GOST 16371-93.
- upper wall cabinets with doors opening upwards do not have free opening / closing. When opening and closing the doors, it is necessary to exert considerable effort, and when the door is closed, a front impact against the body is observed, accompanied by a loud sound. A violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.4 of GOST 16371-93 was established. During the operation of furniture with a detected defect, premature destruction of the facade cladding is possible. This defect could be formed either as a result of the use of poor quality piston lifts, or as a result of their lack of adjustment.
- the internal shelves of the cabinet, installed to the left of the bed, do not have a stable position. The distance from the shelf to the metal fasteners of the shelves (installed on the right) is 2mm (Fig.28, Fig.29). The defect is a violation of the assembly technology of parts. A violation of the requirements of clause 2.2.4 of GOST 16371-93 was established.
- the facades of the drawers of the pedestals are installed skewed. The body of the lockers, towards the bed, protrudes beyond the facade by 5-6mm, and towards the side towards the wardrobes, it hangs over the body of the adjacent wardrobe by 1-1.5mm. The established gaps exceed 2.0 mm, which does not correspond to clause 2.2.2 of GOST 16371-93. The defect was formed as a result of a violation of the installation technology.
- in the cabinets of a set of furniture at the place of hung hinges, there are multiple chips and destruction of the body material (Fig. 32, Fig. 33, Fig. 34). The vice is ubiquitous and unacceptable. The defect was formed as a result of poor-quality installation work and multiple rearrangement of the hinges. The defect is irreparable.
- all parts of furniture cases have non-through holes. holes round shape, the edges are not processed and when they are subjected to a slight physical impact, destruction is observed wood material(Fig.35). These holes are not technological - technological holes are also available (Fig. 36), but they have smooth machined edges and identical size. The reasons for the formation of this defect may be the use of body parts that were in operation, then the holes were formed as a result of disassembling the furniture, or as a result of poor-quality installation work. The defect is invalid, critical. The defect was established in accordance with GOST 20400.
- connection of parts wall cabinet above the bed is made in violation of technology - the connections must be secret, and located inside the closet (Fig. 37). This connection is made on other parts of the furniture. As a result of the fact that the connections are made in violation, the holes and fasteners are on the front side and are visible to the naked eye.
The furniture submitted for research has multiple defects resulting from a violation of the technology for assembling parts and manufacturing defects. As a result of having a large number defects and their ubiquity, including fitting parts different colors cladding, violations of the integrity of materials, defects are of a critical unrecoverable nature.
4. CONCLUSION
The defects identified during the study are critical, unrecoverable and prevent the furniture from being used for its intended purpose. The furniture presented for the study does not meet the requirements of regulatory and technical documentation.
Loading...